Chapel Mormons

[mysteryman]

The "ex-Mormon community" is all about self-validation.

The Mormon apologetic community is also all about self-validation.

[tsubotsubo]

Some people here seem to not understand what an "Internet mormon" is.

Internet mormons do not have to have gotten their information from the Internet. Whether you read what we've all read from a book, or the Internet, the outcome is exactly the same. A few people are saying "I know many people who've researched all of church history in depth, but have never used the Internet", but they're Internet mormons too.

They should probably use a different term, such as 'informed mormon', but I just thought I'd clear this up.

[tsubotsubo]

Oh no, here we go again with the mind reading abilities of your tarot cards. You are in no position to say "no one" leaves the church over being uninformed and only use it as a convenient excuse. You don't know that regardless of what your cards say. There are many that do begin their apostasy when they find out things they did not previously know. Many feel the church has lied to them. This is how they feel, and this is why they left the church, they are the ultimate authorities on why they left, not you and your magic cards. Now, you can argue and make a case that they were uninformed due to their own lack of interest in studying and you can argue that the church does not lie to people. I have known people that became troubled over certain issues and left the church having felt uninformed when in fact their were Ensign articles, statements in church manuals, or books sold at Deseret Book that discuss the issues they felt lied to about; they were in fact wrong that the church was hiding these things, but they did not know it at the time. But you are in no position to tell someone why they left the church, it is like me saying "No one ever joins the Mormon church because they had a spiritual confirmation of its truthfulness, that's just a convenient excuse." I have just as much logical and rational reasoning to make that absurd statement as you have to make yours.

I agree that Jason was making a huge generalization, but I do also agree that some mormons are actually HAPPY to find out that Joseph Smith married other men's wives (for example), because it gives them an excuse to leave. That's just the general jist I get from going on places such as RfM. They're just completely fed up of the church, it's control over them, it's diminuitive culture, and just wish they could leave, and not be seen as stupid by the other mormons.

Some stories go: "I was once a TBM. I'd been a mormon for 30 years, and never once doubted the church. I was on my way to being on the Bishopric, and I was your typical morgbot. I started having problems with the church a few years ago, when I found out it used to be racist. I asked my family and friends for help regarding this, but they kept making excuses. They said I'd be stupid to leave the church over this. Then I found out about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and couldn't take it any longer. I was furious that the church hid this from me, and the events that happened there were injustifiable. I just had to leave. I told everybody I could about this horrific incident, but nobody believed me."

When I hear these stories, I stop to think, are they really "horrified", or are they actually "delighted"? Was it really *only* the MMM and the racism that had them leave the church? I think even the average active mormon knows more than just that.

In terms of recent events, Jeffrey R. Holland's talk horrified them, and Dallin H. Oaks's talk about civil rights delighted them, which is rather strange...

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think you make a good point, tsubotsubo. It may be just me, but I have a very difficult time understanding how a person who is currently enjoying the blessings of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ could leave as a result of having read anything whatsoever.

'Last night, I was enjoying the ministering of angels, the day before that the Saviour removed hatred from my heart in an instant, last week I helped give a priesthood blessing in which the Lord restored sight to a man whose optic nerves had been destroyed by a tumour, and my life is filled with happiness and peace beyond expression, but then I read something on an internet site, and now I'm so out of here. It was all a hoax.'

It just doesn't make logical sense to me. As I've expressed before, in my opinion it would be like sitting in a room illuminated by incandescent lights, reading something unsavoury about Thomas Edison, and then deciding that he was a fraud along with his work.

[Redefined]

Good Morning Everyone,

Now in address to the comments posted.

First of all the fighting injustice comment was in response to Jeff K.'s thought of "You ex Mormons and your polygamy, you love it, you caress it, you fan its flames, it means a great deal more to you than it does to Mormons.". I think if you go back to post #102 and read my comment to his post in that context, you can determine that it would be in direct response to his last sentence here. So he was saying I discuss polygamy because I love it so much (as seen above). I was correcting this because it isn't polygamy I love (I'll excuse the blatant sarcasm). . . it is fighting injustice. . . and polygamy in the Mormon theological sense is an injustice. . . come tell me when women can be eternally sealed to more than one man the same as a man could be to women, and I'll reconsider my opinion.

Lets see. . . .

Secondly, I feel like so many of you are willing to bat me over the head with a grammical error as if no one in the world or in this forum at least ever has done such. If clarification is sought then please ask, and I will clarify, there is no need to sink to a insulting level. If I remember right, MolaRSR did ask me to clarify. . . which if it weren't for me addressing all the other comments being directed my way at the time, I woud have clarified this last night. Post #80 I'm being asked to clarify here. . . which was in response to Dr.JD saying "Sorry, I have never seen one iota of evidece to suggest that brigham young ordered the MMM. His ordering the MMM defies the laws of time and space." . . . Which I replied to point out that if there was conclusive evidence, Brigham Young would be in the history book titled "Early Executed Prisoners in Utah". There are sources that implicate that he had ordered the massacre. . . as I referenced in post #71. . . "Brooks believes it shows Young "did not order the massacre, and would have prevented it if he could."^[10] Bagley argues that the letter covertly gave other instructions.^{[11]http://en.wikipedia....eadows_massacre.}

This was just an example I used to show that there are sources that imply that Brigham Young might be involved. . . it wasn't my attempt to say, this source PROVES he ordered the massacre. The whole discussion of the massacre started with I believe it was Deborah that saying that MMM had nothing to do with the church on the larger scale. Well, this is arguable, Brigham Youngs actions after the fact give as much reason for critics to believe he was in the least indirectly involved, as the church has reason to believe that he had nothing to do with it.

With all of that said, I better copy the post in case I have a submission error!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Ive just come across this term from reading another thread and it has intrigued me.

I have realised I was probably a 'chapel' mormon as I had never heard about any of the contraversial things in the church such as the MMM etc etc. Finding out these things really dented my testimony and faith in the church and I still have confused feelings on this now.

Why your faith in the Church and not just those involved in MMM?

[wenglund]

. . . it is fighting injustice. . . and polygamy in the Mormon theological sense is an injustice. . . come tell me when women can be eternally sealed to more than one man the same as a man could be to women, and I'll reconsider my opinion.

I am not sure why or how you intend to fight an alleged injustice that has been moot for over 100 years (a time machine perhaps?), but to think it an unjustice for men to have to marry more than one women while women don't get to marry more than one man, is to have never been married to or seriously dated a woman.

It is also to not understand marriage in a godly sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jeff K.]

And if it was a commandment of God, is it still unjust?

[Jason]

I think you make a good point, tsubotsubo. It may be just me, but I have a very difficult time understanding how a person who is currently enjoying the blessings of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ could leave as a result of having read anything whatsoever.

It is not just you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Posting error; please disregard.

[Scott Lloyd]

Bagley argues that the letter covertly gave other instructions.^{[11]http://en.wikipedia....eadows_massacre.}

This was just an example I used to show that there are sources that imply that Brigham Young might be involved. . . it wasn't my attempt to say, this source PROVES he ordered the massacre. The whole discussion of the massacre started with I believe it was Deborah that saying that MMM had nothing to do with the church on the larger scale. Well, this is arguable, Brigham Youngs actions after the fact give as much reason for critics to believe he was in the least indirectly involved, as the church has reason to believe that he had nothing to do with it.

But distilled to their essence, Bagley's arguments accusing Brigham Young amount to hardly more than convoluted conjecture that does not begin to outweigh the clear and demonstrable fact that Brigham Young sent an express letter intending to head off any violence on the part of the Iron County settlers. Ergo, critics do not have as much reason to believe he was culpable as the Church has to believe he was not.

[Avatar4321]

Shades produced a dumb theory a few years ago and we are still talking about it. How sad is that?

We are all Saints. All of us have learned different things. Some things we need to unlearn.

Focus on coming to Christ and keep the commandments of God. Then the Lord will teach you line upon line and eventually we will all see eye to eye. That is how we become united and build up Zion.

[Avatar4321]

Would it then be logical to assume that if a church member was spreading false information, and the church was aware, it would be the responsiblity of the church to correct said information.

I defended the polygamy doctrine several times to investigators/friends in the presence of missionaries, high priests, a bishop, and a high councelor using the "widowed women" theory. Not once was I ever corrected. Somebody surely had more knowledge of truth than I did!

Later on towards my apostacy, if you will, I corrected a faith promoting story with facts in GD class. Reprecussions were a result.

And whats wrong with the "widowed women" theory? it is one of the reasons for plural marriage. You can't honestly read the discussions about concern for the widows after the manifesto was made without realizing it was one of the reasons, though I think Jacob 2:30 gives the main one. i would have thought youd read that, but then there are too many people who just dont study the scriptures as they should.

From what you seem to think is faith promoting and true, i wouldnt be surprised if you did cause reprecussions.

[Redefined]

But distilled to their essence, Bagley's arguments accusing Brigham Young amount to hardly more than convoluted conjecture that does not begin to outweigh the clear and demonstrable fact that Brigham Young sent an express letter intending to head off any violence on the part of the Iron County settlers. Ergo, critics do not have as much reason to believe he was culpable as the Church has to believe he was not.

I think what equals it all out is the "lack of evidence" where Brigham Young cannot be counted out as having a role in the Mountains Meadow Massacre. How two different people can come to two different conclusions when presented with all the same information, would suggest that they both have as good as reason to believe one way then they do the other way. Unless you are arguing that they BOTH come to their conclusions with biases. Just the fact that this conflict is not resolved suggests that the church's position is just as sketchy as you percieve the critics position to be.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think what equals it all out is the "lack of evidence" where Brigham Young cannot be counted out as having a role in the Mountains Meadow Massacre.

It is axiomatic in law, debate and logic that the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. If that burden is not met, the accusation collapses from its own lack of substantiation; it is not even necessary to rebut it.

How two different people can come to two different conclusions when presented with all the same information, would suggest that they both have as good as reason to believe one way then they do the other way.

Nonsense. One could be irrationally predisposed to cling to a certain stance despite persuasive evidence to the contrary, while the other could be altogether reasonable. A case needs to be examined on its own merits and viewed critically. It is intellectually lazy to regard it as valid merely because a number of people think it so.

Unless you are arguing that they BOTH come to their conclusions with biases. Just the fact that this conflict is not resolved suggests that the church's position is just as sketchy as you percieve the critics position to be.

I don't believe anyone is altogether free of bias. But that in no way equates to the Church's position being as "sketchy" as the critics.'

[Redefined]

I am not sure why or how you intend to fight an alleged injustice that has been moot for over 100 years (a time machine perhaps?), but to think it an unjustice for men to have to marry more than one women while women don't get to marry more than one man, is to have never been married to or seriously dated a woman.

It is also to not understand marriage in a godly sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can surely say that I have never married or dated a woman!. . . but to the same extent, one husband is more than enough too!

Maybe I never want to understand the godly sense of it, since I don't agree with the practise as it doesn't take into consideration of what I believe to be the neutral status of the soul. (neither male or female. . . or maybe better said both).

[Jeff K.]

Well, Mormons do reject the neutered status of the soul/androgeny is not a goal of for eternal life. If there were no male or female, then why bother with marriage, eternal marriage or the formation of families, we would have our humanity stripped from us and become pod people.

[Redefined]

It is axiomatic in law, debate and logic that the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. If that burden is not met, the accusation collapses from its own lack of substantiation; it is not even necessary to rebut it.

Nonsense. One could be irrationally predisposed to cling to a certain stance despite persuasive evidence to the contrary, while the other could be altogether reasonable. A case needs to be examined on its own merits and viewed critically. It is intellectually lazy to regard it as valid merely because a number of people think it so.

I don't believe anyone is altogether free of bias. But that in no way equates to the Church's position being as "sketchy" as the critics.'

And the guilty go free all the time. . . doesn't make them innocent. . . just makes them unconvictable.

[Redefined]

Well, Mormons do reject the neutered status of the soul/androgeny is not a goal of for eternal life. If there were no male or female, then why bother with marriage, eternal marriage or the formation of families, we would have our humanity stripped from us and become pod people.

Agree, I can see how my belief is unMormon.

[Dr.JD]

I think what equals it all out is the "lack of evidence" where Brigham Young cannot be counted out as having a role in the Mountains Meadow Massacre. How two different people can come to two different conclusions when presented with all the same information, would suggest that they both have as good as reason to believe one way then they do the other way. Unless you are arguing that they BOTH come to their conclusions with biases. Just the fact that this conflict is not resolved suggests that the church's position is just as sketchy as you percieve the critics position to be.

There are still people who believe that mormons sacrifice virgins in the temples. Just because people believe it and the theory is still around does not make it viable. Another example are those who state that the holacaust never took place, no mAtter how much evidence we have to the contrary.

[Scott Lloyd]

And the guilty go free all the time. . . doesn't make them innocent. . . just makes them unconvictable.

But it is unjust to presume someone guilty in the absence of conclusive -- or even persuasive -- evidence of such guilt. Which is the very thing critics do with regard to President Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Think about it: Isn't "His participation cannot be ruled out" a pretty weak argument?

[ERayR]

Shades produced a dumb theory a few years ago and we are still talking about it. How sad is that?

We are all Saints. All of us have learned different things. Some things we need to unlearn.

Focus on coming to Christ and keep the commandments of God. Then the Lord will teach you line upon line and eventually we will all see eye to eye. That is how we become united and build up Zion.

Well said.

Amen

[Calm]

Some people here seem to not understand what an "Internet mormon" is.

Internet mormons do not have to have gotten their information from the Internet. Whether you read what we've all read from a book, or the Internet, the outcome is exactly the same. A few people are saying "I know many people who've researched all of church history in depth, but have never used the Internet", but they're Internet mormons too.

They should probably use a different term, such as 'informed mormon', but I just thought I'd clear this up.

Yes, Shades chose his terms he says based on what the dominant 'type' of Mormon is in each place, his claim is that chapel mormons dominate in the chapels and internet mormons dominate (when adjusted for numbers) on the internet.

His assumption for these labels was never demonstrated effectively.

And I think they can't be demonstrated since as has been mentioned the "internet" mormon has never been dependent on the internet for his studies and the so-called chapel mormon is going to be using the internet for genealogy, finding materials for their calling, visiting lds.org plus all the stuff nonLDS use it for as in playing games, homework, talking to friends etc.

And then there's the fact that Internet Mormons are as likely to be in the Chapel as the Chapel Mormon is (since "Chapelness" is based on belief and I've seen plenty of inactive LDS that hold to the alleged "chapel" paradigms and since it's been statistically demonstrated that higher education among LDS means more activity, one cannot assume activity levels from belief status).

IOW not only has the dicotomy/continuum not been found to be statistically significant, but it has no predictive usefulness nor does it lead to a greater understanding of dynamics....or anything that I can tell.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are still people who believe that mormons sacrifice virgins in the temples. Just because people believe it and the theory is still around does not make it viable. Another example are those who state that the holacaust never took place, no mAtter how much evidence we have to the contrary.

Indeed. Invincible ignorance will always be with us.

[Calm]

And whats wrong with the "widowed women" theory? it is one of the reasons for plural marriage. You can't honestly read the discussions about concern for the widows after the manifesto was made without realizing it was one of the reasons, though I think Jacob 2:30 gives the main one. i would have thought youd read that, but then there are too many people who just dont study the scriptures as they should.

From what you seem to think is faith promoting and true, i wouldnt be surprised if you did cause reprecussions.

IIRC, there were several widows and women alone with children that were among the first involved in plural marriage.

While taking care of the widows might not have been the reason for plural marriage (obeying the Lord is the only reason I see as necessary), plural marriage was used to some extent this way.